TWe-      TebUTTe-CX\  o-ri     c\-nd 


tV. 


>Jr   t\ 


e.     or\«^\-n    ot    xne. 


WP.  ATTr^stror\6  . 


*^<*' 

^i 

2,, 

PRINCETON,  N.  J. 

D'l 

Section     i 

THE  PRINCETON  THEOLOGICAL 
REVIEW 

Number  i  January,  1907 


THE  RESURRECTION  AND  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE 
CHURCH  IN  JERUSALEM.^ 

There  are  various  ways  of  approaching  the  study  of  early 
Christianity.    One  way  is  to  begin  with  Paul.    The  writings 
that  have  come  down  to  us  in  the  New  Testament'  under  his 
name, "so  far   as   they   are  genuine,   are   primary   sources 
for  the  history  of  the  apostolic  age.    Pfleiderer,  for  example, 
begins  his  Urchristentum  with  the  words :    "One  can  only 
regret  that  we  know  so  little  that  is  certain  about  the  first 
beginnings  of  the  Christian  Church,  but  the  fact  itself  can 
not  well  be  contested.     Only  from  the  time  of  the  emergence 
of  the  Apostle  Paul,  in  whose  Epistles  authentic  information 
is  preserved,  does  the  historical  darkness  become  in  a  meas- 
ure  illuminated;    concerning   the   first   beginnings    of   the 
Church,  however,  Paul  gives  but  scanty  hints  (i  Cor.  15: 
3ff.),  from  which  a  distinct  conception  of  the  process  can 
not  be  obtained.    This  lack,  moreover,  is  not  fully  supplied 
by  the  Gospels  and  Acts  which  were  written  later."  2  A  more 
common  way,  however,  even  among  those  who  share  Pflei- 

'  An  address  delivered  in  substance  at  the  opening  of  the  ninety-fifth 
session  of  Princeton  Theological  Seminary  on  Friday,  September  21, 
1906. 

"  Urchristentum^  I,  p.  i.  Man  mag  es  bedauern,  dass  wir  liber  die 
ersten  Anfange  der  christlichen  Kirche  so  wenig  Sicheres  wissen,  aber 
die  Tatsache  selbst  ist  nicht  wohl  zu  bestreiten.  Erst  vom  Auftreten 
des  Apostels   Paulus  an,  in  dessen  Briefen  authentische   Nachrichten 

(1) 


2  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

derer's  opinion  of  the  secondary  character  of  Acts  as  a 
source  for  the  history  of  the  apostoHc  age  is  to  begin  with 
Jewish  Christianity  or  the  Church  in  Jerusalem.  Only  re- 
cently von  Dobschiitz  has  placed  the  discussion  of  Jewish 
Christianity  and  the  origin  of  the  Church  in  Jerusalem  in 
the  forefront  of  the  problems  which  still  seek  solution  at  the 
hands  of  the  historians  of  the  apostolic  age.^ 

That  any  attempt  to  write  the  history  of  the  apostolic  age 
without  taking  account  of  the  life  and  work  of  Jesus  must 
prove  inadequate  will  not  be  denied.  For  whether  we  learn 
of  this  from  Paul  or  from  other  sources,  it  is  the  fact  of 
the  life  and  work,  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  which  is 
the  prius  of  the  subsequent  history.  The  resurrection,  it  is 
true,  is  often  eliminated  from  the  statement  of  the  factual 
basis  upon  which  the  early  Church  rested  and  of  which 
account  must  be  taken  by  historians  of  the  apostolic  age,  and 
in  its  place  is  put  the  belief  of  the  disciples  in  the  resurrec- 
tion. But  whatever  view  be  taken  of  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  as  narrated  in  the  New  Testament,  it  will  be  admitted 
that  the  history  of  the  apostolic  age  can  not  be  understood 
apart  from  the  person  of  Jesus :  what  He  was,  what  He 
did,  what  He  taught,  what  impression  He  made  on  his 
disciples  and  what  they  believed  concerning  Him. 

The  relation  which  Jesus  sustained  to  the  early  Church 
can  not  be  limited  to  mere  temporal  succession.  It  might 
be  explained  as  causal  without  conscious  intention  or  as 
teleological.  If  the  Church  was  not  merely  the  result  of  the 
Messianic  work  of  Jesus,  but  the  particular  result  intended 
and  prepared  for  by  Jesus,  is  the  efficient  cause  of  its  origin 
to  be  sought  in  an  activity  of  Jesus  or  was  the  founding  of 
the  Church  accomplished  by  others  without  any  direct  par- 


vorliegen,  lichtet  sich  das  geschichtliche  Dunkel  einigermassen,  aber 
iiber  die  erste  Entstehung  der  Kirche  gibt  Paulus  nur  einige  ganz 
durftige  Andeutungen  (I  Kor.  15,  3ff.),  aus  welchen  sich  ein  deutliches 
Bild  des  Hergangs  nicht  gewinnen  lasst.  Diese  Liicke  wird  auch  durch 
die  spater  geschriebenen  Evangelien  und  die  Apostelgeschichte  nicht 
voUig  ausgefiillt. 

'  Probleme  des  apostolischen  Zeitalters,  1904. 


THE   RESURRECTION    AND   THE    CHURCH  3 

ticipation  of  Jesus  ?  At  this  point  two  essentially  different 
views  of  the  origin  of  the  Church  divide.  The  issue  con- 
cerns the  nature  of  Jesus  and  of  his  Messianic  work.  If 
Jesus'  activity  ceased  forever  with  his  death  and  his  Mes- 
sianic work  was  finally  terminated  by  that  event,  Jesus  Him- 
self can  have  taken  no  active  part  in  the  origin  of  the 
Church.  This  seems  to  be  implicated  in  Weizsacker's  view, 
though  he  seeks  to  escape  it  by  casting  around  the  beginning 
of  the  Church's  life  a  shroud  of  mystery,  called  the  imme- 
diate in  its  creative  power.'*  Wernle  also  allows  for  Chris- 
tian faith,  which  affirms  the  reality  of  the  spiritual  world, 
the  shadowy  possibility  of  an  activity  of  Jesus  in  producing 
through  the  form  of  visions  the  faith  of  the  disciples  in  the 
resurrection, — a  faith  which  issued  in  the  founding  of  the 
Church.  But  as  an  historian  he  confesses  that -he  is  com- 
pelled to  seek  the  guarantee  of  the  reality  of  the  appearances 
of  Jesus  after  his  death  in  their  effect,  and  this  he  traces  to 
the  impression  which  Jesus  made  on  his  disciples  during  his 
earthly  ministry.^ 

There  is  another  view  of  Jesus'  person  and  work  which 
implicates  a  different  view  of  the  origin  of  the  Church.    The 

*  Weizsacker,  Das  apostolische  Zeitalter^,  p.  5.  "Auch  unter  dieser 
Aufifassung  bliebt  etwas,  was  nicht  weiter  zu  erklaren  ist,  wie  bei  alien 
hoheren  Anfangen  im  Gebiete  des  religiosen  Lebens,  das  Unmittelbare 
in  seiner  schopferischen  Gewalt,  und  die  letzte  Ursache  desselben  liegt 
jenseits  geschichtlicher  Forschung." 

'  Wernle,  Die  Anfdnge  unserer  Religion^,  p.  82.  Das  Urteil  iiber 
diese  Erscheinungen  hangt  ab  vom  Zutrauen  zu  Paulus  und  seinem 
Berichterstatter,  mehr  noch  vom  philosophischen  und  religiosen  Stan- 
dort,  vom  "Glauben"  des  Beurteilers.  Rein  wissenschaftliche  Erwag- 
ungen  konnen  da  nicht  entscheiden,  wo  es  sich  um  das  Ja  oder  Nein 
der  unsichtbaren  Welt  und  die  moglichkeit  des  Verkers  mit  Geistern 
handelt.  Daher  sind  alle  Erklarungsversuche,  deren  Grundlage  das 
Axiom  bildet,  dass  unsere  sinnenfallige  Welt  die  einzige  Realitat  ist, 
notwendig  und  iiberzeugend  nur  fiir  den  Erklarer  selbst.  Der  christ- 
liche  Glaube  rechnet  immer  mit  der  Realitat  des  Jenseits,  das  unser 
Ziel  ist ;  es  macht  daher  fiir  den  Christen  gar  keine  Schwierigkeit,  das 
wirkliche,  durch  eine  Vision  vermittelte  Hineinragen  Jesu  in  unsere 
Welt  fiir  den  Grund  des  Auferstehungsglaubens  anzunehmen. 

Aus  einem  anderen  Grund  kann  sich  der  Historiker  mit  dieser 
Annahme,  selbst  wenn  er  sie  billigt,  nicht  begniigen.    Der  blosse  Glaube 


4  THE    PRINCETON   THEOLOGICAL   REVIEW 

New  Testament  does  not  limit  Jesus'  activity  to  his  earthly 
life.  The  Gospels  represent  Jesus  as  acting  directly  on  men 
after  his  death  and  resurrection  and  as  promising  an  ac- 
tivity mediated  by  the  Spirit.  This  is  the  view  also  of  Paul 
and  Acts.  The  Gospels,  moreover,  in  reporting  the  words 
of  Jesus  make  it  plain  that  He  expected  to  exercise  his 
Messianic  functions  after  his  death  and  to  come  again  on 
the  clouds  of  heaven  in  royal  Messianic  dignity.  This  ex- 
pectation forms  an  essential  element  of  Jesus'  Messianic 
consciousness.  It  can  not  have  had  its  origin  in  the  appear- 
ances and  the  faith  which  they  produced,  since  the  two 
differ  in  form.  The  witness  of  the  New  Testament  to  an 
activity  of  Jesus  subsequent  to  his  death  is  thus  twofold; 
on  the  one  hand  prophetic  in  form  and  constituting  an  ele- 
ment in  Jesus'  Messianic  consciousness,  and  on  the  other 
hand  experiential  in  form  and  consisting  of  direct  testi- 
mony. 

The  New  Testament  view  of  Jesus'  Messianic  activity 
presupposes  and  includes  the  actual  resurrection  of  Jesus 
as  the  opposing  view  denies  and  excludes  it.  The  two  views 
agree  that  the  disciples  believed  in  the  resurrection.  They 
differ  in  regard  to  the  origin  of  this  belief.  The  point  at 
issue  between  them  concerns  the  relation  which  Jesus  sus- 
tained to  this  belief.  The  interpretation  of  this  relation  may 
in  either  view  implicate  an  activity  of  Jesus  after  his  death. 
The  issue  between  them  will  thus  turn  ultimately  on  the 
question  of  an  activity  of  Jesus  after  his  resurrection  or  on 
the  resurrection  itself.  The  witness  of  the  New  Testament 
to  the  resurrection  and  to  an  activity  of  Jesus  after  his 
resurrection  is  both  prophetic  and  experiential  in  form. 
The    genuineness    of   the   prophetic   witness    of   Jesus    to 


an  dieses  Wunder  macht  die  Entstehung  des  Christentums  von  einem 
Zufall  abhangig,  als  ware  ohne  diese  Geschichte  die  Sache  Jesu  unterge- 
gangen.  Aber  in  der  Person  Jesu  war  eine  so  gewaltige,  siegesmachtige 
Erloserkraft,  die  durch  den  schmachvoUen  Tod  doch  auf  keine  Weise 
zu  vernichten  war.  "Er  war  zu  gross,  um  sterben  zu  konnen"  (Lagarde), 
d.  h.  der  Eindruck,  den  er  gemacht,  die  Gemeinschaft,  in  der  man  mit 
ihm  gelebt  hatte,  waren  zu  gross,  zu  fest  und  unzerstorbar." 


THE    RESURRECTION    AND    THE    CHURCH  5 

his  resurrection  is  not,  however,  so  generally  admitted. 
Weizsacker  regards  Jesus'  predictions  of  his  resurrection  as 
unhistorical,  but  lays  great  stress  on  the  prophecy  of  his 
coming  in  glory.®  The  principal  argument  against  the  his- 
toricity of  these  predictions  is  the  psychological  difficulty 
of  the  unbelief  of  the  disciples  when  the  resurrection  was 
reported  to  them.  But  Jesus'  predictions  of  his  resurrec- 
tion are  closely  associated  in  the  Gospels  with  the  an- 
nouncement of  his  approaching  suffering  and  death  (Mk. 
8:  31;  9:  9,  i2f,  31;  10:  33f;  14:  27  and  ||s.).  The  disciples 
did  not  comprehend  Jesus'  meaning;  the  thought  of  his 
suffering  was  too  hard  for  them.  Moreover,  it  was  in  con- 
nection with  the  announcement  of  his  passion  and  resurrec- 
tion that  Jesus  explicitly  predicted  his  coming  in  glory 
(Mk.  8:  3 iff).  This  thought  certainly  took  strong  hold  of 
the  disciples'  minds.  On  the  way  up  to  Jerusalem  they  dis- 
puted about  the  places  of  honor  in  the  Messiah's  kingdom. 
The  transfiguration,  the  triumphal  entry,  the  cleansing  of 
the  temple,  the  eschatological  discourse,  must  all  have  con- 
tributed to  produce  a  state  of  mind  such  as  the  disciples 
manifested.  When,  therefore,  death  came  instead  of  the 
expected  glory,  it  brought  confusion.  The  prophecy  of  his 
coming  in  glory  thus  confirms  the  predictions  of  the  resur- 
rection. But  if  Jesus  predicted  his  resurrection,  joining  it 
as  He  did  with  the  designation  of  Himself  as  Messiah  and 
with  the  prediction  of  his  suffering,  the  thought  of  the  resur- 
rection must  be  admitted  to  a  place  in  his  Messianic  con- 
sciousness along  with  the  thought  of  his  suffering.  And  if 
so,  then  it  was  conceived  by  Him  as  part  of  his  Messianic 
work.  From  this  it  may  be  inferred  that  Jesus  in  predicting 
his  resurrection  thought  of  his  Messianic  activity  as  extend- 
ing beyond  his  passion.  The  view  therefore  which  would 
limit  Jesus'  activity  by  his  death  contradicts  an  essential 
element  of  his  Messianic  consciousness  manifested  in  the 
double  form  of  the  prophecy  of  his  return  in  glory  and  the 
prediction  of  his  resurrection. 

*  Weizsacker,  Das  apostolische  Zeitalter',  p.  14. 


0  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

But  if  it  be  admitted  that  Jesus  expected  his  Messianic 
work  to  extend  beyond  his  death,  that  he  expected  to  rise 
from  the  dead  and  come  in  glory,  the  question  of  the  real- 
ization of  this  expectation  in  either  form  becomes  a  subject 
of  testimony.  It  is  important  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  tradi- 
tion which  contains  Jesus'  prediction  of  his  resurrection 
contains  also  a  definite  statement  of  time, — "on  the  third 
day"  or  "after  three  days"  (Mt  i6:  21 ;  Mk.  8:  31,  etc), — 
an  element  so  firmly  fixed  in  the  early  tradition  that  it  ap- 
pears in  Paul  (i  Cor.  15:  4).  What,  then,  is  the  nature 
of  the  testimony  which  goes  to  accredit  the  realization  by 
Jesus  of  his  expected  resurrection  on  the  third  day  after  his 
death?  The  early  tradition  about  the  life  of  Jesus  embodied 
in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  bears  witness  to  the  resurrection 
both  by  its  account  of  the  empty  grave  and  by  its  descrip- 
tion of  the  appearances  of  Jesus  (Mt.  28 :  iff. ;  Mk.  16 :  iff. ; 
Lk.  24:  iff.).  Paul  witnesses  to  the  resurrection  on  the 
third  day, — derived  probably  from  the  tradition  current  in 
Jerusalem  (o  koI  TrapiXa^ov) — and  adds  his  testimony  to 
the  fact  of  the  resurrection  based  on  an  appearance  of  Jesus 
to  him  (i  Cor.  15:  3ff.).  The  testimony  of  Acts  and  of 
John  both  to  the  fact  and  the  time  of  the  resurrection  agrees 
with  that  of  the  earlier  evidence  (Acts  10:  40;  Jn.  20:  iff). 
Indeed,  the  witness  of  the  New  Testament  to  the  resurrec- 
tion is  so  pervasive  that  the  fact  of  its  witness  can  not  be 
denied.  Those  who  do  not  accept  this  witness  usually  seek 
to  weaken  its  force  either  by  pointing  out  its  lack  of  con- 
sistency or  by  limiting  its  witness  to  the  belief  of  the  dis- 
ciples. 

The  principal  reasons  urged  in  support  of  the  view 
that  the  witness  of  the  New  Testament  to  the  resurrection 
is  not  consistent  arise  out  of  the  nature  of  the  documentary 
evidence.  No  one  of  the  Gospels  contains  a  complete  ac- 
count of  all  that  happened  in  connection  wtih  this  event. 
Moreover,  Paul's  list  of  the  appearances  is  not  exhaustive. 
There  are  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  here  as  elsewhere  in  the 
Gospels,  differences  of  detail  which  are  the  proper  subject 


THE    RESURRECTION    AND    THE    CHURCH  7 

of  harmonistic  study.  One  of  the  chief  differences  is  the 
double  tradition  given  by  the  Gospels  in  regard  to  the  place 
of  the  appearances  of  Jesus.  The  Matthew- Mark  tradition 
is  said  to  report  appearances  only  in  Galilee ;  Luke  mentions 
appearances  only  in  Jerusalem,  while  John  (including  the 
twenty-first  chapter)  narrates  appearances  both  in  Jerusalem 
and  in  Galilee.  Apart  from  the  twenty-first  chapter,  which 
is  often  treated  separately  as  constituting  an  appendix,  the 
Fourth  Gospel  agrees  with  the  Gospel  of  Luke  in  recording 
appearances  only  in  Jerusalem. 

The  arguments  in  defense  of  the  thesis  that  the  Gospels 
do  not  present  a  consistent  account  of  the  place  of  the  ap- 
pearances of  Jesus  have  been  stated  by  Schmiedel  in  the 
Encyclopedia  Bihlica,  IV,  art.  "Resurrection-  and  Ascen- 
sion-Narratives," c.  4039-4087.  The  starting  point  of  the 
argument  is  the  supposed  divergence  of  two  forms  of  Gospel 
tradition.  The  earlier  form,  preserved  in  Matthew-Mark, 
narrates  appearances  of  Jesus  only  in  Galilee :  the  later 
form  given  in  Luke-John  localizes  the  appearances  in  Jeru- 
salem. 

Without  entering  upon  the  question  of  the  relative  pri- 
ority of  the  different  forms  of  Gospel  tradition,  it  will  be 
sufficient  (and  of  primary  importance  for  the  real  issue) 
to  determine  in  as  objective  a  manner  as  possible,  that  is, 
on  the  basis  of  the  documentary  evidence  which  contains 
this  tradition,  both  what  the  Gospel  tradition  in  regard  to 
the  localization  of  the  appearances  is  and  what  relation  the 
different  elements  of  it  sustain  to  one  another. 

The  Gospel  of  Mark  in  its  earliest  transmitted  form  does 
not  narrate  an  appearance  of  Jesus.  The  message  of  the 
angel  in  16:7;  cf.  14:28,  may  justify  the  inference  that, 
had  the  author  completed  his  Gospel,  or  in  case  he  did  and 
the  original  ending  has  been  lost,  the  Gospel  would  have 
contained  an  account  of  an  appearance  of  Jesus  to  the  dis- 
ciples in  Galilee.  It  could  not,  however,  be  fairly  inferred 
that  the  original  ending  would  not  have  contained  an  ac- 
count of  an  appearance  in  Jerusalem.    Matthew's  narrative, 


O  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

which  is  here  closely  parallel  with  Mark,  records  both  the 
reference  to  Galilee  (Mt.  26:32;  28:7;  cf.  Mk,  14:28; 
16:  7)  and  an  appearance  of  Jesus  in  Jerusalem  as  well  as 
an  appearance  in  Galilee  (Mt.  28:  9,  i6fTf.).  It  may,  how- 
ever, be  fairly  inferred  from  the  Gospel  of  Mark  that  the 
disciples  were  in  Jerusalem  on  the  day  of  the  resurrection 
(Mk.  16:7). 

The  Gospel  of  Matthew  records  Jesus'  promise  to  go 
before  the  disciples  into  Galilee  (26:  32);  the  message  of 
the  angel  to  the  women,  "Behold  He  goeth  before  you  into 
Galilee"  (28:  7)  ;  an  appearance  of  Jesus  to  the  women  in 
Jerusalem  (28:  9);  his  message  to  the  disciples  bidding 
them  repair  to  Galilee  (28:  10) ;  and  finally  an  appearance 
of  Jesus  to  the  eleven  disciples  in  Galilee  (28 :  i6fif.).  From 
Matthew's  narrative,  as  from  Mark's,  it  may  be  inferred 
that  the  disciples  were  in  Jerusalem  on  the  day  of  the  resur- 
rection. 

What  support  do  these  facts,  together  with  reasonable 
inferences  from  them,  give  to  the  theory  that  the  earliest 
form  of  Gospel  tradition  embodied  in  Matthew-Mark  locates 
the  appearances  of  Jesus  in  Galilee  ?  Mark  does  not  narrate 
an  appearance  of  Jesus;  Matthews  narrates  two  appear- 
ances,— one  in  Jerusalem  and  one  in  Galilee.  Matthew,  it 
is  true,  does  not  record  an  appearance  to  the  disciples  in 
Jerusalem,  but  this  silence  can  not  be  construed  as  excluding 
such  an  appearance  without  doing  injustice  to  the  nature  of 
the  Gospel,  which  even  in  this  chapter  gives  indication  of  a 
fuller  tradition  than  that  which  it  contains  (28:  16). 

But  the  record  by  Matthew,  one  of  the  chief  witnesses 
for  the  localization  of  the  appearances  in  Galilee,  of  an  ap- 
pearance in  Jerusalem  although  only  to  the  women  (28: 
9f.),  furnishes  a  difficulty  for  the  theory  now  under  con- 
sideration. What  are  the  grounds  upon  which  its  authen- 
ticity is  questioned?  For  the  discussion  of  this  point 
Schmiedel  refers  to  his  article  on  the  "Gospels"  in  the 
Encyclopedia  Bihlica,  II,  c.  1878,  sec.  138.  Attention  is 
first  called  to  the  fact  that  "the  appearance  in  Jerusalem 


THE    RESURRECTION    AND    THE    CHURCH  9 

to  the  two  women  ( Mt,  28 :  gi. )  is  almost  universally  given 
up,"  and  then  follow  the  reasons  for  this  view,  in  which 
Schmiedel  concurs.  The  first  reason  advanced  is  "the  silence 
of  all  the  other  accounts."  But  there  are  only  two  canonical 
Gospels,  Matthew  and  Mark,  and  an  extra-canonical  Gospel, 
that  of  Peter,  which  contain  the  supposedly  earlier  form  of 
the  Gospel  tradition  regarding  the  appearances,  and  of  these 
Mark  and  the  Gospel  of  Peter  do  not  narrate  an  appearance 
of  Jesus.  If  the  silence  of  all  the  other  accounts  be  under- 
stood of  Luke-John,  the  primary  witnesses  for  the  tradition 
which  locates  the  appearances  in  Jerusalem,  then  the  argu- 
ment is  simply  an  appeal  to  a  tradition  which  is  ex  hypo- 
thesi  later  in  origin  and  secondary  in  character  for  the  pur- 
pose of  discrediting  an  element  in  one  of  the  witnesses  to  a 
tradition  which  is  held  to  be  earlier  in  time  and  generally 
more  trustworthy  on  the  subject  of  the  localization  of  the 
appearances,  except  for  this  one  element.  In  order  to  esti- 
mate the  argument  from  silence  in  this  case,  let  it  be  sup- 
posed that  the  Luke-John  tradition  had  mentioned  this 
appearance.  What  effect  would  this  have  had  on  the  judg- 
ment concerning  the  historicity  of  Matthew's  record  ?  The 
passage  in  Matthew  would  still  have  been  open  to  the  sus- 
picion of  influence  from  the  supposedly  secondary  tradition. 
But  there  is  another  reason  for  giving  up  the  appearance  of 
Mt.  28:  gi.  "In  it  Jesus  only  repeats  the  direction  which 
the  women  had  already  received  through  the  angel."  The 
form  of  the  words  is,  however,  not  the  same  in  the  two 
instances,  and  the  similarity  of  content  would  only  furnish 
an  indication  of  common  origin  were  it  proven  that  the 
appearance  in  question  did  not  occur. 

But,  it  is  argued,  "If  the  disciples  had  seen  Jesus  in  Jeru- 
salem, as  Luke  states,  it  would  be  absolutely  incomprehensi- 
ble how  Mark  and  Matthew  came  to  require  them  to  repair 
to  Galilee  before  they  could  receive  a  manifestation  of 
Jesus."  But  neither  Matthew  nor  Mark  makes  this  require- 
ment. They  record  the  message  of  the  angel  and  of  Jesus 
bidding  the  disciples  go  to  Galilee  and  promising  that  they 


lO  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

would  see  Jesus  there.  The  reason  for  the  record  in  Mat- 
thew-Mark of  the  message  to  the  disciples  to  repair  to 
Galilee  is  probably  to  be  connected  with  Jesus'  purpose  ex- 
pressed before  his  death  in  the  remark  to  the  disciples  that 
after  his  resurrection  He  would  go  before  them  into  Galilee. 
The  reference  to  Galilee  in  the  Matthew-Mark  tradition 
should  be  explained  as  due  not  to  ignorance  and  exclusion 
of  Jesus'  appearances  in  Jerusalem,  but  to  the  fact  that 
Galilee  was  the  place  indicated  by  Jesus  before  his  death  for 
meeting  with  his  disciples  and  that  there  this  tradition  knew 
of  a  singularly  significant  appearance  of  Jesus. 

The  view  that  is  held  concerning  the  origin  of  the  double 
tradition  contained  in  the  Gospels  about  the  place  of  the 
appearances  will  affect  the  judgment  of  value  placed  upon 
the  different  elements  which  enter  into  this  tradition.  It  is 
argued  that  if  we  can  not  understand  how  the  Matthew- 
Mark  tradition  arose  on  the  hypothesis  of  the  priority  of  the 
Luke-John  tradition,  the  converse  is  quite  easy  to  under- 
stand. Schmiedel  suggests  the  following  account  of  the 
origin  of  the  Luke-John  tradition  (Ency.  Bib.,  IV.  c.  4072). 
Even  before  Luke  and  John  wrote  ''there  had  sprung  up, 
irrespective  of  Mark  and  Matthew,  the  feeling  that  Jesus 
must  in  any  case  have  already  appeared  to  the  disciples  in 
Jerusalem ;  it  presented  itself  to  Luke  and  John  with  a  cer- 
tain degree  of  authority,  and  these  writers  had  not  now  any 
occasion  to  invent,  but  simply  to  choose  what  seemed  to 
them  the  more  probable  representation,  and  then,  when  in 
the  preparation  of  their  respective  books  they  reached  the 
order  to  go  to  Galilee,  merely  to  pass  over  it  or  get  around 
it  as  no  longer  compatible  with  the  new  view."  But  how 
did  the  Matthew-Mark  tradition  originate?  The  tradition 
which  locates  the  appearances  in  Galilee  is  not  the  more 
natural  or  reasonable  supposing  that  Matthew  and  Mark 
were  dependent  on  conjecture.  "Thus  the  tradition  which 
induced  them  to  place  the  appearances  in  Galilee  must  have 
been  one  of  very  great  stability."  Schmiedel's  view  of  the 
origin  of  this  tradition  is  given  toward  the  close  of  his 


THE   RESURRECTION    AND   THE    CHURCH  I  I 

article,  where  he  discusses  the  first  appearance  of  Jesus. 
Following  Matthew-Mark  he  places  Jesus'  first  appearance 
in  Galilee  and  following  Paul  he  describes  it  as  an  appear- 
ance to  Peter.  After  discussing  the  nature  of  the  appear- 
ances, the  conclusion  is  reached  that  they  were  subjective 
visions.  But  what  was  the  occasion  of  such  a  subjective 
vision  on  the  part  of  Peter?  In  agreement  with  Weiz- 
sacker,  Schmiedel  denies  that  it  was  the  predictions  by  Jesus 
of  his  resurrection.  Jesus'  prophecies  that  He  would  return 
in  glory  are  more  important.  But  most  important  in  Schmie- 
del's  opinion  was  the  fact  that  Peter  had  denied  his  Lord. 
"The  form  of  Him  whom  Peter  had  denied  must  have  come 
up  before  him  with  ever  renewed  vividness,  however  he  may 
have  struggled  to  escape  it.  Though  at  first  he  may  have 
said  to  himself  that  this  was  a  mere  creation  of  his  fancy, 
it  is  certainly  not  too  bold  a  conjecture  that  a  moment  came 
when  he  believed  he  saw  his  Lord  bodily  present  before  him, 
whether  it  was  that  the  eye  was  turned  upon  him  with 
reproach  and  rebuke,  or  whether  it  was  that  it  already  as- 
sured him  of  that  forgiveness  for  which,  beyond  all  doubt, 
he  had  been  praying  with  all  the  energy  of  his  soul."  (Ency. 
Bib.  IV,  c.  4085).  What  could  happen  to  Peter  might 
happen  to  others,  and  all  the  more  so  after  it  had  happened 
to  Peter.  For  "could  he  but  once  find  himself  able  to  say 
that  he  had  seen  Jesus,  the  others  no  longer  needed  to  be 
able  to  raise  themselves  out  of  their  state  of  prostration  by 
their  own  strength;  what  had  happened  to  Peter  supplied 
what  was  wanting  in  this  respect."  Although  Schmiedel 
does  not  specifically  connect  the  origin  of  the  Matthew-Mark 
tradition  of  the  appearances  with  Peter,  such  a  connection 
may  fairly  be  inferred  from  the  significance  attributed  to 
Peter's  vision  of  Jesus.  And  yet  if  this  be  the  origin  of 
this  form  of  Gospel  tradition  it  is  strange  that  of  the  two 
Gospels  which  supposedly  contain  it,  Matthew  alone  nar- 
rates an  appearance  in  Galilee,  not,  however,  to  Peter  alone, 
but  to  the  Eleven. 

But  it  is  held  that  the  Matthew-Mark  tradition,  although 


■2  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL   REVIEW 

Of  great  stability  and  of  Petrine  origin,  is  not  self-consistent 
Both  Matthew  and  Mark  imply  that  the  disciples  were  pret 
ent  ,„  Jerusalem  on  the  day  of  the  resurrLion  "  a    a  t 
wh,ch  ,s  not  only  inconsistent  with  the  occurrence  of  the 
firs  appearance  in  Galilee,  but  also  one  of  the  sources  of  the 
tradition  preserved  in  Luke-John  which  locates  the  appear- 
ances m  Jerusalem  {Ency.  Bib.  II,  c.  1879.  IV,  c.  4072) 
This  mconsistency  does  not,  however,  discredit  the  Mat^ 
thevv-Mark  tradition  in  regard  to  the  place  of  the  appear- 
ances; it  simply  shows  that  Matthew  and  Mark  were  mis- 
taken in  supposing  that  the  disciples  were  still  in  Jerusalem 
on  the  day  of  the  resurrection.    This  appears  from  the  fact 
recorded  both  by  Matthew  (26:  56)  and  by  Mark  (14.  50) 
that  the  disciples  were  dispersed  after  the  arrest  of  Jesus  - 
a  fact  which  is  omitted  by  Luke.     Peter,  moreover,  woild 
hardly  have  exposed  himself  gratuitously  to  further  danger 
after  his  denial.     Only  women  were  present  at  the  cruci- 
fixion.  Where  were  the  disciples?  Schmiedel  confesses  that 
this  IS  not  told,  but  suggests  that  "it  is  not  difficult  to  con- 
jecture that  they  had  gone  to  their  native  Galilee  "—a  fact 
insufficiently  veiled  in  the  angelic  command  that  they  should 
go  there. 

A  little  evidence  is  worth  more  than  much  conjecture. 
Ihere  is  some  evidence  in  Matthew-Mark  that  the  disciples 
were  m  Jerusalem  on  the  day  of  the  resurrection.  A  little 
evidence  should  be  advanced  to  show  that  they  were  not 

a\.  ^"'^^^"^  ""^  ^"^^"^^"'^  '^  '^  suggested  that  Matthew 
and  Mark  sought  to  remove  the  inconsistency  in  their  narra- 
tives by  recording  the  message  of  the  angel  to  the  women 
whereas  Luke-John  secured  consistency  by  dropping  alto- 
gether the  references  to  Galilee  and  transferring  the  appear- 
ances to  Jerusalem.  Such  a  treatment  of  the  evidence,  how- 
ever,  involves  a  highly  artificial  explanation  of  the  message 
to  the  disciples  and  a  very  precarious  use  of  the  argument 
from  silence. 

Schmiedel's  thesis,  in  a  word,  is  this:  The  Gospel  tradi- 
tion concerning  the  place  of  the  appearances  of  Jesus  is 


THE    RESURRECTION    AND    THE    CHURCH  13 

not  only  two-fold,  but  inconsistent.  The  earlier  form  rep- 
resented in  Matthew-Mark  locates  the  appearances  in  Gali- 
lee, and  this  is  the  more  trustworthy  of  the  two.  But  an 
examination  of  the  historical  evidence  yields  the  following 
facts.  Mark  mentions  no  place;  Matthew  mentions  an  ap- 
pearance in  Jerusalem  and  one  in  Galilee;  it  may  fairly  be 
inferred  from  Matthew  and  Mark  that  the  disciples  were 
in  Jerusalem  on  the  day  of  the  resurrection;  the  Gospel  of 
Peter  mentions  no  place ;  Paul  mentions  no  place. 

The  tradition  which  locates  appearances  of  Jesus  in  Jeru- 
salem is  said  to  be  secondary.  What  is  the  nature  of  the 
evidence  which  witnesses  to  this  form  of  Gospel  tradition? 
Matthew,  one  of  the  chief  witnesses  to  the  primary  or  Gali- 
lean form,  narrates  an  appearance  in  Jerusalem  ( 28 :  gi.). 
Luke  narrates  an  appearance  of  Jesus  to  Cleopas  and  a  com- 
panion as  they  were  journeying  from  Jerusalem  to  Emmaus 
on  Easter  Sunday  (24 :  13-32).  On  the  return  of  these  two 
to  Jerusalem  the  disciples  announce  to  them  that  Jesus  had 
appeared  to  Simon  (24:  33f.).  Luke  then  narrates  an  ap- 
pearance of  Jesus  to  the  disciples  who  were  assembled  in 
Jerusalem  and  closes  with  an  account  of  Jesus'  separation 
from  the  disciples,  probably  on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  toward 
Bethany  (24:  36-53,  cf.  Acts  i :  12).  Thus  Luke  describes 
two  appearances  of  Jesus,  one  near  and  one  in  Jerusalem. 
He  mentions  an  appearance  to  Peter,  but  does  not  definitely 
locate  it.  The  time  of  this  appearance,  however,  makes  it 
impossible  to  think  of  Galilee  as  the  place  of  its  occurrence. 
John  narrates  an  appearance  of  Jesus  to  Mary  Magdalene  at 
the  sepulchre  (20:  1-18)  and  two  appearances  to  the  dis- 
ciples in  Jerusalem,  one  on  the  evening  of  Easter  Sunday, 
when  Thomas  was  absent,  and  one  a  week  later,  when 
Thomas  was  present  (20:  19-23,  24-29).  The  twenty-first 
chapter  of  John  records  an  appearance  to  certain  of  the 
disciples  in  Galilee.  The  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews 
narrates  an  appearance  to  James,  the  Lord's  brother  (cf.  i 
Cor.  15:  7).     No  place  is  mentioned,  but  the  reference  to 


14  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL   REVIEW 

the  servant  of  the  high  priest  makes  it  natural  to  think  of 
Jerusalem.'^ 

What  relation  does  the  Luke-John  tradition  sustain  to  the 
Matthew-Mark  tradition  ?  Both  traditions  are  well  attested. 
They  could  be  regarded  as  contradictory,  and  thus  mutually 
exclusive,  only  on  the  theory  that  the  Gospel  narratives 
are  complete,  or  that  some  one  of  them  contains  a  com- 
plete record  by  which  the  others  are  to  be  judged.  Such 
a  theory,  however,  is  not  only  opposed  by  i  Cor.  15:  1-8; 
it  would  do  great  injustice  to  the  Gospels,  which  mani- 
festly are  not  and  do  not  claim  to  be  complete.  Even 
where  completeness  may  have  been  sought,  as  in  the  case 
of  Luke  (cf.  1:3),  its  attainment  must  have  been  lim- 
ited by  the  sources  of  information  to  which  he  had  access. 
Contradiction  might,  however,  arise  out  of  the  narratives 
themselves  if  the  two  traditions  described  the  appearances 
in  such  a  way  as  to  be  mutually  exclusive.  The  Matthew- 
Mark  tradition  does  not,  either  by  its  temporal  or  by  its 
local  elements,  exclude  appearances  in  Jerusalem.  Does 
the  Luke-John  tradition  exclude  appearances  in  Galilee?  It 
is  urged  that  Luke  not  only  locates  the  appearances  in  Jeru- 
salem, but  places  them  all  on  one  day,  the  ascension  occur- 
ring on  Easter  Sunday  (cf.  also  Barn.  15:  9).  This  inter- 
pretation of  Luke  is  inconsistent  with  Acts  1:3,  which  men- 
tions a  period  of  forty  days  between  the  resurrection  and 
the  ascension.  Inasmuch  as  Acts  and  the  Third  Gospel  come 
from  the  same  author,^  there  is  a  presumption  against  this 
view  of  the  last  chapter  of  the  Gospel.  What  are  the  facts  ? 
It  is  true  that  Luke  does  not  mention  the  message  of  the 
angel  or  the  message  of  Jesus  bidding  the  disciples  go  to 
Galilee.  His  silence  may  have  been  due  to  the  sources  upon 
which  he  depended,  but  in  any  event  it  does  not  contradict 
the  Matthew-Mark  tradition.    Moreover,  a  careful  examina- 


'  Jerome,  de  viris  inlustribus,  2.  "Dominus  autem  cum  dedisset  sind- 
onem  servo  sacerdotis,  ivit  ad  lacobum  et  apparuit  ei." 

*  Cf.  Harnack,  Lukas  der  Arst  der  Verfasser  des  dritten  Evangeliums 
und  der  Apostelgeschichte.    1906. 


THE    RESURRECTION    AND    THE    CHURCH  1$ 

tion  of  the  last  chapter  of  the  Gospel  will  reveal  indications 
that  the  events  there  recorded  did  not  occur  on  one  day. 
The  narrative  begins  with  the  visit  of  the  women  to  the 
grave,  and  this  is  definitely  placed  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week.  The  next  event  is  the  appearance  of  Jesus  to  Cleopas 
and  his  companion,  and  the  time  is  again  definitely  stated 
as  on  the  same  day  and  as  toward  evening,  the  self-revela- 
tion of  Jesus  taking  place  at  the  evening  meal  (24:  13,  29). 
In  that  very  hour  the  two  disciples  arose  and  returned  to 
Jerusalem  to  the  assembled  disciples,  who  announced  that 
Jesus  had  appeared  to  Simon,  and  they  in  turn  narrated 
Jesus'  appearance  to  them.  While  they  were  speaking  Jesus 
stood  in  their  midst,  talked  with  them,  ate  in  their  presence 
and  expounded  to  them  the  Scriptures.  He  finally  led  them 
out  toward  Bethany  and  was  separated  from  them.  Appar- 
ently there  is  no  break  in  the  temporal  order.  Every  step 
is  definitely  linked  to  the  preceding  by  some  note  of  time 
(24:  13,  29,  33)  or  participial  clause  used  temporally 
(24:  36)  until  24:  44,  50.  The  particle  of  connection  in 
both  these  verses  is  Se.  In  the  one  a  saying  of  Jesus  is 
introduced,  in  the  other  an  action  of  Jesus.  The  saying 
may  have  been  spoken  in  connection  with  the  appearance 
narrated  in  24:  36-43,  or  it  may  have  been  spoken  at  a  later 
time.  The  latter  interpretation  is  the  more  probable.  The 
action  introduced  in  24:  50  can  not  well  be  connected  tem- 
porally with  this  saying  if  the  saying  be  temporally  con- 
nected with  the  preceding  appearance.  This  appearance  was 
on  the  evening  of  Easter  Sunday,  and  such  a  connection 
would  necessitate  the  conclusion  that  the  ascension  occurred 
at  night  (but  cf.  Acts  i :  9f).  Plummer  remarks  on  Luke 
24:  44-49:^  "The  section  seems  to  be  a  condensation  of 
what  was  said  by  Christ  to  the  Apostles  between  the  Resur- 
rection and  the  Ascension,  partly  on  Easter  Day  and  partly 
on  other  occasions.  But  we  have  no  sure  data  by  which 
to  determine  what  was  said  that  same  evening,  and  what 
was  spoken  later.     Thus  Lange  assigns  only  ver.  44  to 


'International  Critical  Commentary.    St  Luke.    p.  561. 


THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL   REVIEW 

Easter  Day,  Godet  at  least  vv.  44,  45,  Euthymius  vv.  44-49, 
while  Meyer  and  others  assign  all  the  remaining  verses  also 
(44-53)  to  this  same  evening.  On  the  other  hand,  Didon 
would  give  the  whole  of  this  section  to  a  later  occasion,  after 
the  manifestations  in  Galilee.  It  is  evident  that  the  com- 
mand to  remain  ev  ry  iroXei  (ver.  49)  cannot  have  been 
given  until  after  those  manifestations,  and  was  almost  cer- 
tainly given  in  Jerusalem."  Again,  speaking  of  the  Ascen- 
sion and  the  conclusion  of  the  Gospel,  Plummer  says  (ibid., 
p.  564)  :~"It  is  incredible  that  he  can  mean  that,  late  at  night 
(vv.29,  33),  Jesus  led  them  out  to  Bethany,  and  ascended  in 
the  dark.  So  remarkable  a  feature  would  hardly  have  es- 
caped mention.  Probably  84  both  here  and  in  ver.  44 
introduces  a  new  occasion."  If  it  be  conceded  that  the  last 
chapter  of  Luke  does  not  require  a  time  for  the  Ascension 
in  conflict  with  all  the  other  evidence,  then  the  Luke-John 
tradition  may  be  held  together  with  the  Matthew-Mark  tra- 
dition, the  four  Gospels  yielding  a  tradition  which  is  indeed 
twofold  but  not  inconsistent. 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  the  witness  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  the  resurrection  cannot  be  used  for  historical  pur- 
poses, whatever  may  be  its  value  for  religious  purposes. 
Such  a  fact  as  the  resurrection  is  thought  to  lie  beyond  the 
sphere  of  historical  criticism,  because  the  principles  of  his- 
torical criticism  are  held  to  be  inapplicable  where  the  miracu- 
lous is  implicated.  What  underlies  this  view  is,  however, 
simply  a  philosophical  naturalism  in  which  no  place  can  be 
found  for  the  miraculous.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  historical 
criticism  does  and  must  subject  the  witness  of  the  New 
Testament  to  the  resurrection  to  a  close  and  careful  scrutiny. 
If  the  principles  of  historical  criticism  be  naturalistic,  no 
amount  of  the  best  historical  evidence  will  suffice  to  accredit 
such  an  event  as  the  resurrection;  but  if  the  principles  of 
historical  criticism  admit  the  possibility  of  the  miraculous, 
a  possibility  not  denied  by  Schmiedel,^^  then  the  work  of 

^°  Ency.  Bib.  IV,  c.  4040.  "The  present  examination  of  the  subject  will 
not  start  from  the  proposition  that  miracles  are  impossible." 


THE    RESURRECTION    AND    THE    CHURCH  17 

investigating  the  historicity  of  the  resurrection  does  fall 
within  the  sphere  of  historical  criticism  and  the  question 
concerning  the  actual  occurrence  of  this  miracle  resolves 
itself  into  a  matter  of  evidence.  It  may  indeed  be  confessed 
that  the  way  in  which  a  miracle  is  wrought  may  not  be 
known,  and  that  the  power  by  which  it  is  wrought  is  in- 
scrutible,  but  concerning  the  occurrence  of  such  an  event 
the  historical  evidence  must  decide. 

The  evidence  of  the  New  Testament  which  accredits  the 
historicity  of  the  resurrection  is  early  and  clear.  However 
much  it  may  differ  in  detail,  it  witnesses  to  the  fact  both 
consistently  and  pervasively.  It  should  receive  at  the  hands 
of  an  historical  criticism,  which  is  not  held  in  bondage  by 
the  limitations  of  naturalistic  principles,  the  same  recogni- 
^.  tion  that  is  accorded  to  the  New  Testament  witness  to  the 
^belief  of  the  disciples  in  the  resurrection.  Historical  crit- 
icism can  not,  without  ceasing  to  be  historical,  give  up  either 
of  these  facts.  The  differences  which  exist  in  the  different 
narratives  of  the  resurrection  do  not  invalidate  this  judg- 
ment. For  were  they  incapable  of  being  so  reconciled  as 
to  present  an  account  complete  and  consistent  in  all  its 
details,  this  should  not  affect  the  verdict  that  ought  to  be 
rendered  concerning  the  fact  upon  which  all  the  evidence  is 
agreed.  The  differences,  however,  are  not  the  essential 
element  of  the  problem.  There  are  differences  in  regard  to 
the  time,  place,  and  attendant  circumstances.  One  of  these 
has  been  considered,  the  supposed  inconsistency  in  the  state- 
ments of  the  Gospels  about  the  place  of  the  appearances. 
Other  questions  arise,  such  as  the  order  of  the  appearances, 
the  persons  to  whom  Jesus  appeared,  and  the  arrangement 
of  the  various  events.  But  these  difficulties,  inherent  in  the 
nature  of  the  sources  and  the  consequent  lacunae  in  our 
knowledge,  do  not  render  uncertain  the  evidence  for  the 
fact  of  the  resurrection  to  which  all  the  elements  which  make 
up  the  New  Testament  witness  give  consent. 

But  it  may  be  said,  according  to  the  testimony  of  the  New 
Testament  itself,  no  one  saw  the  resurrection.     Its  witness 

(2) 


I  8  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

to  the  resurrection  therefore  may  be  simply  an  inference 
drawn  by  the  disciples  from  their  experience  of  the  appear- 
ances. The  New  Testament,  it  is  true,  does  not  describe  the 
resurrection,  and  in  this  respect  its  narratives  compare  fav- 
orably with  the  account  of  that  event  given  in  the  apoc- 
ryphal Gospel  of  Peter.  The  New  Testament,  however,  is 
consistent  in  representing  Jesus  as  the  subject  of  the  resur- 
rection, as  the  one  who  experienced  it  and  therefore  as  the 
one  best  able  on  the  basis  of  an  adequate  experience  to  testify 
to  the  fact.  The  value  of  the  testimony  of  the  disciples  to 
the  resurrection,  however,  is  not  lessened  by  its  inferential 
character.  For  the  validity  of  inferential  testimony  depends 
on  the  validity  of  its  premises  and  the  accuracy  of  the  pro- 
cess by  which  the  conclusion  is  reached.  In  other  words, 
the  value  of  inferential  testimony  lies  in  its  nature  as  reason- 
ing. In  order  to  test  it  there  is  need  simply  to  ascertain, 
what  are  the  facts  which  constitute  the  premises,  what  is  the 
conclusion,  and  then  to  inquire,  is  the  conclusion  warranted 
by  the  facts.  What,  then,  are  the  facts  which  constitute  the 
premises  of  the  inferential  judgment  given  in  the  witness 
of  the  disciples  to  the  resurrection?  The  death  and  burial 
of  Jesus,  the  empty  grave  observed  on  the  morning  of  the 
third  day  after  the  crucifixion,  the  appearance  of  angels  who 
announce  the  resurrection,  and  finally  the  various  appear- 
ances of  Jesus,  who  both  by  act  and  by  word  witnesses  to 
his  resurrection.  The  disciples  disbelieved  the  report  of  the 
women  about  the  grave  and  the  appearance  of  the  angels 
(Lk.  24:  11)  and  some  doubted  when  Jesus  appeared  to 
them(Mt.  28 :  17).  In  the  case  of  Paul  the  premise  of  fact  is 
not  so  extensive.  It  does  include,  however,  the  one  essential 
fact  in  the  appearance  of  Jesus  to  him,  by  means  of  which 
Paul  was  fully  convinced  of  Jesus'  resurrection, — a  con- 
clusion quite  in  accord  with  and  subsequently  confirmed 
more  in  detail  by  the  tradition  of  the  early  church.  When 
now  the  test  of  logic  is  applied  to  the  conclusion  from  these 
premises  as  given  in  the  inferential  testimony  of  the  disciples 


THE   RESURRECTION   AND   THE    CHURCH  I9 

and  Paul  to  the  resurrection  it  can  not  well  be  denied  that 
the  conclusion  follows  logically  from  the  premises. 

There  can  be  very  little  question  about  the  validity  of  the 
testimony  of  the  New  Testament  to  the  resurrection,  and 
consequently  about  the  fact  of  the  resurrection  (since  as  a 
miraculous  event  its  actual  occurrence  is  simply  a  question 
of  evidence),  if  the  premises  upon  which  this  testimony  rests 
once  be  granted.  Hence  the  debate  about  the  resurrection 
usually  finds  its  natural  center  in  the  question  regarding  the 
validity  of  the  premises  upon  which  this  testimony  rests, 
and  the  center  of  this  center  is  the  question  concerning  the 
appearances  of  Jesus.  For  if  reality  once  be  admitted  to 
the  appearances  as  described  in  the  New  Testament,  it  will 
be  difficult  to  escape  the  conclusion  given  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment witness  to  the  fact  of  the  resurrection. 

Objection  may  be  made  to  the  New  Testament  testimony 
to  the  resurrection  on  the  ground  that  this  is  the  only  testi- 
mony available,  and,  being  limited  to  Christian  sources,  is 
the  less  valuable,  by  reason  of  the  possibility  that  its  only  and 
sufficient  origin  may  have  been  the  purpose  of  the  Christian 
consciousness  to  glorify  Jesus.  But  the  purpose  to  glorify 
Jesus  is  not  an  unworthy  purpose.  The  New  Testament 
writers  attributes  such  a  purpose  to  God,  and  among  other 
things  include  in  this  purpose  the  resurrection  (Rom.  6:4; 
Acts  3:  i3ff.,  cf.  Phil.  2:9;  Jn.  13:  32).  The  purpose  to 
glorify  Jesus  becomes  an  unworthy  purpose  only  when  in  its 
interest  something  is  said  to  have  happened  to  Jesus,  such 
as  the  resurrection,  which  did  not  happen.  This  is  the  point 
implied  in  the  objection.  No  evidence  is  advanced  to  show 
that  Jesus  did  not  rise.  If  he  did,  the  objection  has  no  force. 
Moreover,  it  will  be  admitted  that  if  the  resurrection  be  a 
fact,  the  natural  sources  from  which  evidence  could  be 
expected  would  be  Christian  documents.  It  would  be  strange 
if  such  were  not  the  case.  When,  therefore,  Christian  docu- 
ments present  such  evidence,  and  this  is  found  to  be  early, 
per\'asive  and  consistent,  it  can  not  be  dismissed  as  untrust- 
worthy simply  because  it  is  Christian.    It  is  not  sufficient  to 


20  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

suggest  that,  being  Christian,  it  may  have  had  its  origin  in 
the  Christian  consciousness.  To  do  so  is,  in  plain  language, 
to  bring  the  charge  of  false  witnessing  against  the  Christian 
consciousness,  and  such  a  charge  should  be  supported  by 
some  more  substantial  evidence  than  a  mere  possibility. 

Let  us  consider  for  a  moment  the  problem  raised  by  the 
Christian  character  and  origin  of  the  evidence  for  the  resur- 
rection. The  resurrection,  like  the  miracles  which  Jesus 
wrought,  was  not  a  show-miracle.  In  the  temptation  Jesus 
set  aside  firmly  the  idea  of  a  mere  wonder-working  Messiah 
(Mt.  4:3ff. ;  Lk.  4:  3ff.).  When  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees 
demanded  a  sign  from  heaven  Jesus  refused  (Mk.  8:  11). 
His  miracles  were  ever  kept  in  close  relation  with  his  work, 
usually  requiring  or  calling  forth  a  receptive  attitude  of 
^aith  on  the  part  of  those  to  whom  He  brought  help.  It  is 
recorded  that  Jesus  did  not  many  mighty  works  in  Nazareth 
because  of  their  unbelief  (Mt.  13:  58;  Mk.  6:5).  In  like 
manner  the  resurrection  stands  in  closest  relation  to  Jesus' 
work  and  to  that  receptive  attitude  of  faith  which  his  work 
was  designed  to  produce.  As  an  event  which  happened  to 
Jesus  it  had  its  first  and  deepest  meaning  for  Jesus  Himself, 
for  by  it  He  passed  out  of  the  power  of  death,  to  which  He 
had  submitted  Himself,  into  that  new  life  which  He  now 
has  with  God.  As  the  incarnation  marks  the  historic  begin- 
ning of  the  humiliation  of  the  Son  of  God,  so  the  resurrec- 
tion marks  the  historic  close  of  the  humiliation  and  the  his- 
toric beginning  of  Jesus'  exaltation  and  glorification.  This 
event  was  for  Him  resurrection  from  death  and  contains  in 
itself  all  the  meaning  and  potency  of  Jesus'  death  as  Mes- 
siah; it  was  also  resurrection  into  a  life,  in  which  all  the 
rich  blessings  of  Jesus'  Messianic  work,  as  this  was  brought 
to  completion  in  the  self-sacrifice  of  Calvary,  are  the  pos- 
session of  Jesus.  But  as  the  humiliation  of  Jesus  was  not 
for  Himself,  so  the  blessings  of  his  death  were  not  for  Him- 
self alone.  The  resurrection,  therefore,  by  which  He  en- 
tered upon  the  full  possession  of  these  blessings,  must  have 
been  of  the  greatest  significance,  not  only  for  Jesus,  but  also 


THE    RESURRECTION    AND    THE    CHURCH  2  1 

for  those  who  with  Him  have  an  interest  in  his  Messianic 
work.  At  that  time  these  were  above  others  those  in  whose 
hearts  faith  had  quickened  a  loving  devotion,  the  women 
who  had  been  with  Him  in  GaHlee  and  had  come  up  with 
Him  to  the  last  Passover  and  the  men  whom  He  had  gath- 
ered about  Himself  and  instructed.  As  during  his  earthly 
life  Jesus  labored  to  implant  and  develop  faith,  so  after  his 
resurrection  He  followed  the  same  course.  And  as  He 
knew  before  his  death  that  unbelief  would  not  be  changed 
into  faith  though  one  rose  from  the  dead  (Lk.  i6:  31 ;  Jn. 
II :  46ff.),  so  He  neither  came  down  from  the  cross  at  the 
taunt  of  his  enemies  (Mk.  15:  32)  nor  went  to  them  after 
his  resurrection  to  compel  their  faith.  For  the  faith  which 
Jesus  came  to  bring,  the  faith  which  He  desires,  has  moral 
qualities  which  cease  to  be  so  soon  as  faith  becomes  some- 
thing compelled  from  without  rather  than  something  which 
springs  from  within.  By  this,  however,  it  is  not  meant  that 
the  cause  of  faith  is  purely  subjective,  but  that  faith  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  object  of  faith  is  a  voluntary  disposition 
in  which  there  is  not  only  the  element  of  recognition,  the 
assent  of  the  intellect,  but  also  the  element  of  appreciation, 
the  consent  of  the  whole  nature.  If  either  of  these  elements 
be  neglected  the  resulting  conception  of  faith  will  be  partial 
and  inadequate.  An  undue  insistance  on  the  intellectual 
element  to  the  exclusion  of  the  appreciative  element,  some- 
times called  the  moral  or  practical,  yields  a  purely  theoretic 
and  formal  conception  of  faith.  Quite  as  serious  a  change 
in  the  nature  of  faith  follows  an  undue  and  exclusive  insist- 
ance on  the  appreciative  element  in  faith.  If  the  moral  and 
spiritual  elements  of  faith  be  emphasized  and  faith  be  con- 
ceived as  consisting  essentially  in  the  spiritual  evaluation  of 
phenomena,  then  this  emotional  and  volitional  appreciation 
of  knowable  truth,  which  between  persons  takes  the  form 
of  trust,  will  leave  little  room  for  the  intellectual  apprehen- 
sion of  truth.  Such  a  conception,  however,  cuts  faith  ofif 
from  its  object;  for  the  phenomena,  of  which  faith  expresses 
personal  appreciation  in  terms  of  value  judgments,  are  ulti- 


J%a  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL   REVIEW 

mately  subjective  experiences.  If  the  theoretic  or  truth 
content  of  faith  be  affirmed  only  on  grounds  of  moral  and 
spiritual  appreciation,  faith  can  not  speak  with  certainty 
about  an  object  transcending  the  subjective  sphere.  But  the 
faith  which  Jesus  sought  to  inspire  had  an  object,  whether 
presented  in  the  form  of  a  message,  an  event,  or  a  person, 
and  this  object,  however  mediated  to  consciousness  in  the 
sphere  of  knowledge,  was  not  simply  a  phenomenon  of  con- 
sciousness or  a  purely  subjective  experience.  Faith,  there- 
fore, while  in  its  nature  a  subjective  state,  has  a  relational 
aspect  which  can  be  explained  only  in  terms  of  its  object. 
This  gives  to  it  a  theoretic  or  knowledge  content  which 
transcends  the  subjective  sphere.  Faith  and  knowledge  both 
have  a  theoretic  content,  but  faith  brings  to  its  theoretic 
content  a  judgment  of  appreciation  or  value  which  in  the 
sphere  of  personal  relations  takes  the  form  of  trust. 

If  Jesus  sought  to  quicken  faith  in  his  message  and  in 
Himself  before  his  death,  it  is  but  natural  that  his  activity 
subsequent  to  his  death  and  resurrection  should  have  been 
directed  toward  the  same  end.  The  purpose,  therefore,  of 
the  appearances  to  those  who  had  faith  in  Him  must  be 
understood  in  the  light  both  of  Jesus'  work  of  implanting  a 
true  faith  and  of  the  relation  of  the  resurrection  to  such  a 
faith.  This  faith,  both  before  and  after  Jesus'  death,  had 
for  its  essential  content  Jesus  the  Messiah.  Of  this  content, 
however,  Jesus'  own  self-consciousness  and  perfect  knowl- 
edge of  his  work  were  the  standard,  into  conformity  with 
which,  in  its  measure,  it  was  necessary  that  faith  in  Him 
should  be  brought.  In  other  words,  the  work  of  informing 
faith  was,  equally  with  that  of  quickening  faith,  an  essential 
part  of  Jesus'  work.  The  Gospel  records  of  the  earthly 
ministry  of  Jesus  reveal  how  much  he  did  to  give  to  faith  an 
adequate  content.  This  work  He  continued  after  his  resur- 
rection both  by  personal  intercourse  with  his  disciples  and 
after  his  ascension  through  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Since  the  resurrection  stood  in  closest  relation  to  Jesus 
Himself  and  to  the  content  of  faith,  which  before  his  death 


THE    RESURRECTION    AND    THE    CHURCH  23 

He  had  sought  to  perfect,  it  was  but  natural  that  the  self- 
revelation  of  Jesus  after  his  resurrection  should  have  been 
made  to  those  of  faith.  The  Gospel  records  reveal  plainly 
the  fact  that  the  appearances  of  Jesus  had  a  very  direct  rela- 
tion to  faith.  They  were  intended, — and  hence  their  recur- 
rence and  the  words  of  instruction  which  accompany  them, 
— ^^to  inform  the  faith  of  the  disciples  in  regard  to  Jesus 
Himself  and  his  work.  This  informing  of  faith  consisted 
primarily  in  the  self-revelation  of  Jesus  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  convince  the  disciples  not  only  of  his  resurrection,  but 
also  of  his  entrance  into  a  life  in  which  his  Messianic  power 
and  authority  were  henceforth  to  be  exercised,  without 
restriction  of  time  and  space,  in  the  interest  of  his  Messianic 
kingdom.  The  Gospels  narrate  appearances  of  Jesus  to  the 
women  and  to  his  disciples.  To  those  whom  He  had  pre- 
pared to  appreciate  the  significance  of  his  Messianic  work 
Jesus  manifested  Himself  that  their  faith  might  more  per- 
fectly lay  hold  of  Him  in  his  triumphant  Messianic  life. 
Such  a  faith  had,  of  course,  moral  qualities  which  could  not 
be  supplied  by  mere  sensible  apprehension,  and  hence  Mat- 
thew tells  of  some  who  doubted  when  Jesus  appeared  to 
them  (Mt.  28:  17).  But  while  the  early  appearances  were 
made  chiefly  to  those  who  had  believed  on  Him  (cf.  Acts 
10:  39ff.),  Jesus  was  not  limited  to  the  disciples  in  his  self- 
revelation.  When  it  pleased  Him,  He  made  revelation  of 
Himself  to  his  brother  James  (i  Cor.  15:  7)  and  later  to 
one  of  the  most  bitter  persecutors  of  his  cause ;  and  with  the 
same  purpose  of  quickening  and  informing  faith  He  made 
of  James  a  steadfast  servant  in  the  ministry  of  his  Gospel 
to  the  Jewish  nation,  and  of  Paul  a  faithful  and  efficient 
witness  among  the  Gentiles  to  his  resurrection  and  saving 
power. 

In  the  case  of  the  appearance  to  James  and  to  Paul,  as 
in  that  of  the  appearances  to  those  who  had  already  believed 
on  Him,  the  New  Testament  clearly  describes  the  activity 
of  a  person,  an  activity  voluntarily  determined  and  directed 
toward  a  definite  end.     Viewed,  therefore,  in  the  light  of 


24  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

Jesus'  activity  before  his  death  and  in  the  hght  of  the  end 
of  that  activity  in  the  quickening  and  informing  of  faith, 
the  New  Testament  narratives  of  the  activity  of  Jesus  after 
his  resurrection  in  manifesting  Himself  to  the  women,  his 
disciples,  James  and  Paul  are  self-consistent.  It  is  only 
when  these  narratives  are  isolated  from  Jesus'  whole  life 
and  work  that  objection  can  be  made  to  them  on  the  ground 
of  the  limitation  of  the  appearances  to  the  disciples,  and  its 
corollary,  the  Christian  character  and  origin  of  the  evidence 
for  the  resurrection.  But  when  the  appearances  are  con- 
ceived of  as  forming  an  organic  part  of  Jesus'  work  and  as 
contributing  in  their  measure  to  a  purpose  consistently  ad- 
hered to,  the  New  Testament  account  of  them  is  both  per- 
fectly natural  and  intrinsically  reasonable.  For  if  Jesus' 
work  culminated  in  his  death  and  resurrection  and  his  work 
was  directed  toward  stimulating  and  informing  faith,  then 
it  was  a  matter  of  very  great  importance  for  the  perfecting 
of  faith  in  Himself  as  Messiah  that  Jesus  should  by  his  own 
self-revelation  convince  his  disciples  of  his  triumph  over 
death  and  entrance  upon  another  stage  of  his  Messianic  life. 
And  this  was  the  more  important  if  Jesus  intended  to  use 
the  disciples  in  the  building  of  his  Messianic  community  or 
Church  (Mt.  i6:  i8).  This  could  be  done  only  on  the  basis 
of  a  faith  which  consciously  embraced  Jesus  as  Messiah  and 
realized  in  its  essential  elements  the  nature  of  his  Messianic 
work.  And  if  this  work  included  the  resurrection  it  was 
important  for  the  faith  of  the  disciples  in  Jesus'  Messiahship 
and  for  the  Church,  which,  through  the  disciples,  Jesus 
founded,  that  Jesus  should  Himself  inform  their  faith  that 
they  in  turn  might  become  true  witnesses  of  Him  and  his 
work  in  the  witness  which  they  bore  to  his  resurrection. 

The  Gospels  locate  the  first  appearances  of  Jesus  in  or 
near  Jerusalem  and  assign  them  to  the  day  of  the  resurrec- 
tion. The  appointment  of  Galilee  by  Jesus  before  his  death 
as  a  place  of  meeting  after  his  resurrection  and  the  messages 
to  his  disciples  to  go  there  reveal  a  desire  on  Jesus'  part  to 
meet  with  them  there.    The  appearances  in  Jerusalem,  which 


THE   RESURRECTION    AND   THE   CHURCH  2  5 

require  the  lapse  of  at  least  a  week's  time,  make  it  impossible 
to  suppose  that  the  departure  of  the  disciples  to  Galilee  was 
a  flight  or  that  their  state  of  mind  on  arrival  was  one  of 
utter  dejection.  After  the  appearances  in  Galilee  the  dis- 
ciples came  again  to  Jerusalem,  and  were  there  at  the  time 
of  Jesus'  last  appearance  to  them,  which  terminated  with 
the  ascension.  The  account  given  in  the  Gospels  of  the 
appearances  of  Jesus  first  in  Jerusalem,  then  in  Galilee,  and 
finally  in  Jerusalem,  furnishes  a  satisfactory  explanation 
both  of  the  belief  of  the  disciples  in  the  resurrection  and  of 
the  origin  of  the  Church  in  Jerusalem.  This  explanation, 
it  is  true,  has  explanatory  value  only  on  the  theory,  to  which 
the  New  Testament  is  committed,  that  Jesus  really  rose 
from  the  dead  on  the  third  day  after  his  crucifixion  and 
entered  upon  a  state  of  being  in  which  his  activity,  though 
freed  from  the  limitations  of  space  and  time,  was  in  certain 
instances  personally  exercised  in  the  sphere  of  space  and 
time  in  the  interest  of  the  continuance  of  his  Messianic  work. 
Princeton.  William  P.  Armstrong. 


k 


■'*■■■%• 


%:--^ 


Date  Due 

"^  v 

UE5^'^^ 

VC,^      Q^ 

1— ^w' 

_^        .     ,, 

ipibMW^ 

4<^h  11  ■^t 

h 

i 

<$) 

BS2427.A73  x.u 

The  resurrection  and  the  origin  ot  the 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00059  0713      BH^Ft"^ 

'•■;.' vh:iV*;i/-     ■■■'     ■ 


<-0^^^m^ 


